Remarks about gays prompt suspension of 'Duck Dynasty' star
-
Koala, hillbilly bashing is everywhere and Christmas is on life support.
-
Yes they are equal until the point where violence enters the picture.
There's hillbilly-bashing?
Well the term hillbilly refers to poor Irish Protestant immigrants who settled in the Appalachians or other mountainous regions since it reminded them of their native land. We know they are Protestants because Catholics would not name their children William. They were despised at the time of their immigration and persecuted heavily. The term hillbilly itself is a derogatory slur as we all know: an insult to that group of people. So I wonder why the liberal douche bags don't insist we call that the H word?There's hillbilly-bashing?
WSS
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
As a free market libertarian I would say that A&E can do whatever the fuck they want with their product. If their contract said that they don't want someone chatting about how they like the dick and Phil signed it, then he would be subject to getting fired. Simple as any other morals clause in a contract. The same rule applies if a teacher signs the contract at a private catholic school to work and decides after signing to come out as gay. The teacher signed the contract and knows that the school can fire them. There is no legal recourse.
That being said, the paying public can then vote with their wallet as to what they want to do. They could continue to give the network their money or boycott. So it is not a 1st Amendment issue. No one is being prevented from expressing an opinion. No one is being arrested.
-
You are free to say whatever you want and others are allowed to react accordingly.
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
-
There was no dismantling of anyone's rights in that interview. Phil did not say "gays shouldn't have rights" or anything remotely close (in addition to linking it with bestiality, he linked other examples of sin - burglary, drunkenness, slander, swindling). But y'all are right, "gays = horsefuckers" is waaay more sound byte-ey. Good work. He merely said that homosexuality is a sin. According to the bible. Which is correct. You can agree or disagree with the bible, but you can't disagree that what Phil said is found in the bible.
So, imagine the reverse scenario:
What if Phil was gay and talked about supporting homosexuality as a lifestyle in an interview? Where he was asked a question about it, rather than bring it up on his own. Suppose A&E wasn't fond of the gay, and suspended him indefinitely for his remarks? Would you crybaby pussies be supporting A&E then? Of course not. A&E would be sued and then drawn & quartered with respect to their remaining assets.
This is why it's a 1st amendment issue. You have 1 group of people protected & insulated by the 1st amendment and another that is not.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
I don't think you can fire someone based on their race, gender or sexual preference. So yes, if he was fired for being gay then there would be an issue.
If was straight but said he supported gay marriage, and he got suspended for it, then no, I see no issue. A&E would still be able to do what they want based on the contract signed.
You can most definitely get canned if you agree to a contract that stipulates (insert whatever religious group) morals and you choose to break that arrangement. I have a few friends that currently work at or have worked at private christian and catholic schools. They canned people for coming out gay. They also canned people for getting divorces. They had zero legal recourse because it was all spelled out in their employment contracts.
-
Keep in mind these were all private institutions.
-
Oh, well if they signed something beforehand then yeah, I could see that.
-
Just had a couple of hot dogs for lunch and saw the restaurant example that was posted.
I don't know why individuals successful in a business tend to venture into gray areas like this. Remember Jack Nicklaus in the early 90s when asked about blacks in golf?
Nicklaus responded by saying "blacks have different muscles that react in different ways."
Now, I love Jack Nicklaus, used to cut the grass in his neighborhood in Dublin, Ohio, but, unless I am mistaken, he doesn't have a degree in physiology. So why would he say that?
Another guy here in town where I work has a restaurant. He plays Fox News the whole time he is open with the sound turned down, which is fine, I don't have to look and ESPN is on another TV. I am sitting at the bar on lunch and this guy starts feeding me the latest talking points about things that neither one of us seem to have a good grasp on. Screw me, I just want a hot dog, not hot dogma. How about asking whether or not my food is any good first at least? Bottom line, I get my hot dogs at a place now that doesn't even have a TV. The owner, well, acts like an owner instead of a political operative.
Now, I know next to nothing about duck dynasty, this is the most I have ever heard of the show and I have never seen it. Yet again, here is a successful individual complaining explicitly about butt sex and a host of other "sins". Pretty freaking far from duck calls unless they are up someone's rectum...Now I learn he is also a pastor, a "missionary who just happens to be on TV". Again, somehow pastors all across the country guide their flocks without explicitly comparing anuses and vaginas in public, especially in GQ, so why must he again? Surely he knows some missionaries were boiled in water and eaten for spreading the gospel, so what's the problem with a little blow back now? God is on his side after all...and in duck dude's mind good chefs stir the pot apparently...what's the issue? Oh yeah, he may lose some money...
Objectively, someone could posit that he was trying to build up his audience, congregation and duck call sales by publicly sharing his beliefs. Why else appear in GQ? If that was the case then he has to accept the flak with the kudos. He does play himself on tv and not Jesus of Nazareth...so it is easy to connect his "outside" opinions with his on-screen "character".
Bottom line: the LGBTQ folk are out of the closet and organized and aggressive. They are not the easy targets they used to be. I had to take a required class with someone whose specialty was identifying the centuries-old put-downs that people used to use for gay and transgender folks in Europe. Talk about looking to be offended, digging in the past to be offended more like it. Anyone else know a 500-year-old Spanish word for "fag"? Add to that the publicity of the high suicide rates for LGBTQ teens over the last ten years (many due to bullying) and you begin to see some of the reasons for their aggression.
Flip it around and look at it this way: what if Christian teens were suiciding in concerning numbers over Christianity and the LGBTQ folks were on TV and in magazines saying that Christianity is an abomination and that Christians are damned in this life and the next? Would that be considered free speech as well or a provocation?
Also, they are not just seeking "tolerance" as some have suggested. Tolerance for them is a joke, they want acceptance and do not appear to be willing to stop short of their goal.
As for Duck Dude, I wonder if he would like another chance at answering the question? As we see on these forums every day:
FREE SPEECH = FREEDOM TO PROVOKE CONSEQUENCES
-
Yes, he would. Would gays stop being gay because of the consequences?
The left generally is extremely intolerant of any different opinion. MMGW. Check. gay? Check.
Christian viewpoints? Check.
2nd Amendment? Check. Against the welfare state? Check. Against abortion? Check.
Support the military? Check.
And on and on it goes. Any leftwing agenda demands conformity. that's why they hate what they can't control.
Perversion and sin, is perversion and sin. Free to be gay - freedom to provoke consequences.
Wait, that isn't correct to the left. And, it's said to be wrong, because the left is anti-everything they don't like,
and they use priciples like using two sides of a piece of paper. They go with one when it's convenient, then
they go the opposite principle, when it's convenient. And it all ends up no principles at all. Just a bunch
of flip flopping garbage rationalization.
Here's an excellent article defending Phil (who HAS at least seen the show....)
-
Sorry Cal, I tend to have good instincts even without watching garbage tv...
Looks like they hooked themselves a sucker. I thought it was all about the money, looks like I was right.
You can rail on about libs all you want, These guys are fake. I know you met them, you were fooled.
This link has the best pics and quotes bible verses to contradict Phil's entire being pretty much. I chose the site because it has the before and after pictures. There are other sites reporting this, check out Crooks and Liars too.
Add a beard and camo and you have instant redneck. LOVE the quote where Phil says he hates yuppies,..hilarious. Can we be done with these fools now?
Seriously bro, you need to lighten up and use some of your vaunted critical thinking skills. I'm willing to give you a break, but not when you act the fool.
-
Except that Phil's looked that way for 30 years. Go check out his 1st hunting video: "Duckmen of Louisiana" (except you can't, it's from 1988)
As for the kids, I bet you can drum up some pics of yourself from your teenage years when you probably looked pretty douchey. I know I've got some in my parent's attic.
They adopted the "duck man" look when they started doing the videos with Phil and when they bought the company from him - well before reality TV.
Source: me, someone who's duck hunted with my dad since Bernie was our QB.
Here's a less vindictive, butt-hurt article on the Robertson's pre-fame & pre-"controversy"
http://www.sportsspectrum.com/articles/2013/03/23/duck-dynasty-how-it-almost-never-happened/
Sure, luck means a lot in football. Not having a good quarterback is bad luck. -Don Shula -
Sorry Cal, I tend to have good instincts even without watching garbage tv...
Looks like they hooked themselves a sucker. I thought it was all about the money, looks like I was right.
You can rail on about libs all you want, These guys are fake. I know you met them, you were fooled.
This link has the best pics and quotes bible verses to contradict Phil's entire being pretty much. I chose the site because it has the before and after pictures. There are other sites reporting this, check out Crooks and Liars too.
Add a beard and camo and you have instant redneck. LOVE the quote where Phil says he hates yuppies,..hilarious. Can we be done with these fools now?
Seriously bro, you need to lighten up and use some of your vaunted critical thinking skills. I'm willing to give you a break, but not when you act the fool.
Sorry Cal, I tend to have good instincts even without watching garbage tv...
Looks like they hooked themselves a sucker. I thought it was all about the money, looks like I was right.
You can rail on about libs all you want, These guys are fake. I know you met them, you were fooled.
This link has the best pics and quotes bible verses to contradict Phil's entire being pretty much. I chose the site because it has the before and after pictures. There are other sites reporting this, check out Crooks and Liars too.
Add a beard and camo and you have instant redneck. LOVE the quote where Phil says he hates yuppies,..hilarious. Can we be done with these fools now?
Seriously bro, you need to lighten up and use some of your vaunted critical thinking skills. I'm willing to give you a break, but not when you act the fool.
For someone so intelligent, you sure picked a stupid link to prove your point.
-
Two fairly meaningless replies. First let me quote the lyrics to the theme song of Mystery Science Theater 3000. "Remind yourself it's just a show I should really just relax."
Haha! Anyway I can't help but suspect this whole thing is set up to sell products.
Point number 2 is even less meaningful... Just as Schopenhauer was writing his post I was simultaneously having two hotdogs for lunch.
WSS
WSS
-
Schopen,
Really, that link? Seriously?
Come on, man. Read Phil's book. He's been who he is for the last 38 years, and before that,
he was who he was, which was not a very good guy.
Read his book. There isn't anything fake about him. That's the point, in a big way.
And "these guys are fake" ??? Read the other two books. See it from when they were kids.
That goes for Phil and Si, and the three sons. Your instincts are that much on this subject.
We met people in West Munroe, in passing, who admire the Robertsons because they really are, and
always have been, exactly the people you see on TV.
Cept you never watched the show, never read the books, never been there, never talked to folks
that know them.
-
Yes, he would. Would gays stop being gay because of the consequences?
The left generally is extremely intolerant of any different opinion. MMGW. Check. gay? Check.
Christian viewpoints? Check.
2nd Amendment? Check. Against the welfare state? Check. Against abortion? Check.
Support the military? Check.
And on and on it goes. Any leftwing agenda demands conformity. that's why they hate what they can't control.
Perversion and sin, is perversion and sin. Free to be gay - freedom to provoke consequences.
Wait, that isn't correct to the left. And, it's said to be wrong, because the left is anti-everything they don't like,
and they use priciples like using two sides of a piece of paper. They go with one when it's convenient, then
they go the opposite principle, when it's convenient. And it all ends up no principles at all. Just a bunch
of flip flopping garbage rationalization.
Here's an excellent article defending Phil (who HAS at least seen the show....)
Yes, he would. Would gays stop being gay because of the consequences?
The left generally is extremely intolerant of any different opinion. MMGW. Check. gay? Check.
Christian viewpoints? Check.
2nd Amendment? Check. Against the welfare state? Check. Against abortion? Check.
Support the military? Check.
And on and on it goes. Any leftwing agenda demands conformity. that's why they hate what they can't control.
Perversion and sin, is perversion and sin. Free to be gay - freedom to provoke consequences.
Wait, that isn't correct to the left. And, it's said to be wrong, because the left is anti-everything they don't like,
and they use priciples like using two sides of a piece of paper. They go with one when it's convenient, then
they go the opposite principle, when it's convenient. And it all ends up no principles at all. Just a bunch
of flip flopping garbage rationalization.
Here's an excellent article defending Phil (who HAS at least seen the show....)
Good to know
Disagreeing with Cal = being extremely intolerant
-
Well, Cracker Barrel put their Duck Dynasty/Phil Robertson stuff right back on the shelves,
and now A&E has reinstated Phil Robertson to the show immediately.
Perhap they thought all of America is gay and black.
Freakin idiots, wiser now, since Real America stood up to them, and lambasted them
with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of signatures on petitions, insisted they
immediately do what they just did.
Real America isn't perverse, nor hateful of religion, nor freedom of speech, and they'll stand
up for what's right.
-
oh god.... that "Real America" bullshit. I haven't heard that in awhile.
Cracker Barrel is fantastic though. So I guess I can't argue. Not that I would, because it was all A&Es decision.
Please Cal. Define "Real America" for me. Tell me what is and isn't part of "Real America". Then look at your list and figure out why "Real America" lost the last two elections...
-
oh god.... that "Real America" bullshit. I haven't heard that in awhile.
Cracker Barrel is fantastic though. So I guess I can't argue. Not that I would, because it was all A&Es decision.
Please Cal. Define "Real America" for me. Tell me what is and isn't part of "Real America". Then look at your list and figure out why "Real America" lost the last two elections...
oh god.... that "Real America" bullshit. I haven't heard that in awhile.
Cracker Barrel is fantastic though. So I guess I can't argue. Not that I would, because it was all A&Es decision.
Please Cal. Define "Real America" for me. Tell me what is and isn't part of "Real America". Then look at your list and figure out why "Real America" lost the last two elections...
The nature of elections is cyclical. That's just s stupid uninformed remark. Liberals lost the two before that. Conservatives lost two before that. Liberals lost three before that. Get with the program. Don't worry. Next election the liberals will be out on their asses crying about gay marriage and legal pot from the sidelines. I chuckle a little that you still think your awesome generation is going to change the world, because my awesome generation was going to change the world, remember? My parents awesome generation of hippies was supposed to change the world. You know what they changed? The same thing your generation will. Jack shit.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login